• I don’t think this has been discussed very often so I was wondering if anyone had ever tried to get USA land units into the middle east. I think if it was fast / feasible being able to get a couple of transports of US troops into the Middle East would be useful for protecting Cairo/India or moving north and getting US troops into Russia.

    There are 2 paths 1) go through the Med and arrive in Syria 2) go South of Africa and arrive in Persia.

    Having a US land army in Russia would help tip the scales against a determined German attack. Has anyone attempted anything like this? Do you have any thoughts in favor of something like this or do you think it is not as optimal as other established US tactics?

    This would be instead of landing in Rome or Western Europe. I’m stuck brainstorming because I don’t think you can get more than 1 transport of troops to Persia by US5. Is there a faster route?


  • There is one more route…have considered using it…but… (played only … only …if you know Japanese player will do a J4)

    Hawaii TR (+2inf) to Queensland US1
    To Java on US2
    To India on US3
    to Persia on US4

    MH

  • '17

    @MeinHerr:

    There is one more route…have considered using it…but… (played only … only …if you know Japanese player will do a J4)

    Hawaii TR (+2inf) to Queensland US1
    To Java on US2
    To India on US3
    to Persia on US4

    MH

    Less likely path to occur that way.

  • '17

    Another scenario would be in the event of a J1 attack.

    Drop a tank in w. Africa. The tank could reach Iraq on Round 4. You send planes/bombers to catch up. A US factory on Iraq is a huge game changer.


  • This is the interesting thing about playing the U.S.: there are so many things you can do, but will any of your actions save your Allies?

    Getting into the Middle East is probably not worth it in my opinion unless you can build a factory there.  The real problem is, of course, simply getting there.  While you are wasting time and IPCs trying to send a minor force to a relatively well-guarded Allied stronghold, is Moscow or London, or Calcutta and Sydney going to fall?  Maybe a level of deceit is necessary to ensure that the Axis are still preparing to see you in France and the Philippines.

    There is another strategy that a lot of people are talking about called “Bright Skies” in which the Americans send a bunch of bombers to Russia and surrounding areas.  Maybe a Middle East landing combined with thus could result in a very interesting, formadable American position?

  • 2020 '19 '18

    As I see it, the absolute best the US could do is 1 Armor + 1 INF from Eastern/Central US and 2 INF from Hawaii into Persia on US4, and that’s assuming the European Axis declare war on the US in Round 1. There are just so many potential obstacles there: the presence of Axis warships or aircraft in the Med, U-boats remaining in the Atlantic, Japanese movements in the South Pacific.

    In terms of distance from the US, Persia is almost the most remote territory on the board. With that in mind, I think the best way America can help her allies - the best way to defend Cairo/India - is to force the Axis to defend elsewhere. Trite though it may be, “the best defense is a good offense” applies here. American landings in Norway or Southern France, for example, can occur much faster than a Persian Expeditionary Force, draw Axis attention away from Cairo and potentially aid the Soviets.

  • '17

    @Charles:

    This is the interesting thing about playing the U.S.: there are so many things you can do, but will any of your actions save your Allies?

    Getting into the Middle East is probably not worth it in my opinion unless you can build a factory there.  The real problem is, of course, simply getting there.  While you are wasting time and IPCs trying to send a minor force to a relatively well-guarded Allied stronghold, is Moscow or London, or Calcutta and Sydney going to fall?  Maybe a level of deceit is necessary to ensure that the Axis are still preparing to see you in France and the Philippines.

    There is another strategy that a lot of people are talking about called “Bright Skies” in which the Americans send a bunch of bombers to Russia and surrounding areas.  Maybe a Middle East landing combined with thus could result in a very interesting, formadable American position?

    Good points. The way I look at however, is that it only really costs 12 IPCs for a mIC and a few planes that you’d purchase anyways. I don’t see how that could result in not helping Calcutta or Moscow. From there the US could send stuff either direction.

    The cost of the 12 IPCs for a factory in Iraq plus planes that you could use otherwise could result in Moscow or Calcutta falling.

  • '19 '17 '16

    It isn’t just the 12IPC cost though. There’s also the cost of leaving Persia/Iraq neutral for a number of turns while the USA are getting there. Also the cost of having a mixed nation force in the area. If you’re linking up with forces in/from India, there’s a big difference on attack between the multi national force and the all-UK force, which is important if you can/need to reclaim India.

    UK do have enough money to support the mid east, just not enough left over to do much else. So the real question, the “why” question, becomes what else would you do with the freed up UK money? If it’s landing on France, USA can do that much better.

    You get similar problems if ANZAC takes Iraq, which makes much more sense to me. It just doesn’t help the allies that much. I did it a few months ago as ANZAC but only because the Italians unwisely (IMO) took Iraq via Syria.

  • '17

    USA can afford to buy 3 tanks per turn or 3 fighters to go to Moscow which saves money and valuable purchases for the UK.

    The soonest Iraq can be captured is turn 4; leaving it neutral that long does have consequences. I understand that point. However, I’d rather Iraq be US controlled than Anzac as it’s not for sure that they could afford to build a mIC and 3 units per turn.

    With the freed up money the UK could really build enough units to save India or move north because the US could be landing fighters on Moscow. The UK may have to land some in the beginning. But situation dictates of course what the UK does with the money that they’re not forced to spend on 10-12 fighters to save Moscow. You do what makes sense. If the US is building up for a landing than the UK buys fighters on London to add to the landing. If the US is going KJF, then maybe you mostly continue to beef up the middle east.

    I’ve seen the US capture Iraq before. It was the game changer that won that game for the allies.

  • '17

    I’d only consider trying to give Iraq to the US on round 4 is in the event of a J1 atrack. Otherwise the time is too long. Of course in this situation most of the US effort will probably focus on business as usual. And if Moscow doesn’t hold or Japan gets an early capture of India and the money islands, than its not because of 1 tank and a few planes that went to the middle east.

    Iraq captured on turn 4 with units produced on turn 6 is a long time which means of course the usual goals have to occur. I get that.

  • '19 '17 '16

    You mean UK proceeds as normal but USA additionally puts an IC on Iraq? That could work actually. Although there is no real likely way of getting that transport through the med with only one cruiser to defend it.

    I would still question if this is a better idea that USA going after Norway early and/or France later.


  • From each direction, if everything is ideal, you can reach Iraq on US4, build mIC on US5, produce your first tanks/fighters US6, and so first U.S. reinforcements land in Moscow or Calcutta on US7, just in time for G8 or J8 attacks?

    way too late to do any good in most games.

    I’m for it, I suppose, as a side mission to a U.S. Mediterranean push, perhaps, but not sure its worthwhile in any other scenario.

  • '17

    @simon33:

    You mean UK proceeds as normal but USA additionally puts an IC on Iraq? That could work actually. Although there is no real likely way of getting that transport through the med with only one cruiser to defend it.

    I would still question if this is a better idea that USA going after Norway early and/or France later.

    US does not send a transport to get Iraq. Only and only if a J1 attack occurs than the US can land a fast mover in west Africa. It then drives into Iraq on turn 4. That is probably the quickest way.

  • '17

    @simon33:

    You mean UK proceeds as normal but USA additionally puts an IC on Iraq? That could work actually. Although there is no real likely way of getting that transport through the med with only one cruiser to defend it.

    I would still question if this is a better idea that USA going after Norway early and/or France later.

    Who said the US couldn’t also go for Norway as well. Sometimes the US captures Korea and builds a mIC there yet still manages to stick a landing on Normandy or Norway. Iraq is no different, just in a very important part of the board.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Ichabod:

    @simon33:

    You mean UK proceeds as normal but USA additionally puts an IC on Iraq? That could work actually. Although there is no real likely way of getting that transport through the med with only one cruiser to defend it.

    I would still question if this is a better idea that USA going after Norway early and/or France later.

    US does not send a transport to get Iraq. Only and only if a J1 attack occurs than the US can land a fast mover in west Africa. It then drives into Iraq on turn 4. That is probably the quickest way.

    Going that way, on US3 you reach Tobruk, US4, Egypt, US5 Iraq.

    Although weddingsinger has pointed out the major problem with the plan. It just arrives too late to achieve much. Better to give UK 2IPC/turn which they might be able to do something productive with.

  • '17

    Simon, I’m speaking from actual game experience having played a game against Gen Cre who gave Iraq to the US on turn 4. He’s a great allies player and is one of the contributors to BM3.

    You don’t drive across north Africa that takes an extra turn longer. Look at the map please.

    West Africa turn 1 (land a tank or a mech)
    French Equatorial Africa turn 2
    Egypt turn 3
    Iraq turn 4

    Bombers or regular planes catch up. In our game Gen Cre took the risk of strafing Iraq by the UK to soften it up; whch entails other risks but it worked out perfect for hin cause there was only 1 infantry remaing.

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15

    @Ichabod:

    Simon, I�m speaking from actual game experience having played a game against Gen Cre who gave Iraq to the US on turn 4. He�s a great allies player and is one of the contributors to BM3.

    You don�t drive across north Africa that takes an extra turn longer. Look at the map please.

    West Africa turn 1 (land a tank or a mech)
    French Equatorial Africa turn 2
    Egypt turn 3
    Iraq turn 4

    Bombers or regular planes catch up. In our game Gen Cre took the risk of strafing Iraq by the UK to soften it up; whch entails other risks but it worked out perfect for hin cause there was only 1 infantry remaing.

    If you are gonna get US units fast to the middle east this is the way to go, shuttle fast movers (and inf) to french west africa, then you can have the US armor get to Iraq US4. Build factroy USA 5 and deploy first units USA 6. The problem is that in most cases Germany can start driving south on G7 or G8 making the factory very vulnerable. But it is possible if you have a plan and that plan must involve stopping germany from going south.

    I think the biggest merits for USA troups in the middle east is to can open for the british. Sometimes the british get a good size stack that may treaten Germany or Italy stack, but if USA can can open,it is sometimes enough to discourage Germany to go south, but it also allowes the british to land planes there on the newly captured USA areas, making a Germany counter hopefully impossible

  • '19 '17 '16

    Ok. You mean French West Africa. Seems you can save a turn that way.


  • Wow the sub Saharan route is actually feasible. You don’t need to worry about the safety of your transport and if you give Ethiopia to UK1 then your tank should be able to take Iraq with some air power without any difficulty. I think the factory in Iraq is additionally valuable because while you could give the money to UK, together you can produce 6 fighters a turn cycle in the Middle East. UK having a strong grip on the Middle East can save the Allies and I think it is unlikely they would have the production to support 2 factories and 6 units a turn, but the US could easily spend 30 in Iraq each turn.

    This strategy would work because there is little opportunity cost to sending a tank US1 and it increases the number of units arriving in Moscow each turn further pushing that battle in the allies favor.

    Additionally all of your buys US1-3 are relatively independent (with the exception of maybe some aircraft) of this strategy so while it does take a while to set up, the production of US fighters and UK fighters arriving in Moscow or Calcutta would make the difference in the late game. The remainder of your money could be dedicated to KJF or landings in Europe.

    Furthermore, Iraq is connected to SZ 80 and could be used to produce subs for KJF

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15

    But again the problem is germany capturing the factory, something you definitely need to worry about

  • '19 '17 '16

    @oysteilo:

    But again the problem is germany capturing the factory, something you definitely need to worry about

    Germany can be getting to Caucasus G6, which is just as USA is about to produce its first units. Wow, it really is vulnerable! Assuming UK puts down a blocker in NW Persia, it will have one round of units to defend itself. So it needs to be saved by UK ground units and/or US planes from the mainland.

    This idea is actually really interesting as a path for getting US planes to support the mid east and Moscow.

  • '17

    @simon33:

    Ok. You mean French West Africa. Seems you can save a turn that way.

    I always meant that, really? Wouldn’t you just say Morocco as the landing spot if just referring to North Africa?

    It’s ok to just admit you were wrong 🙂

    Now as far as this stategy is concerned, the way I see it, is only in the event of a J1; otherwise its too late. And all of the other stuff the allies do and react to has to be business as usual of course. But if the US can cheaply get Iraq, just think of the power they can plant there. By round 10 they could have 12 units produced there. Going to round 10 without the middle east falling is a very likely scenario; especially if the UK got Persia Round 1 and starting building right away. US can fly a few more planes there to beef up their foothold.

  • '19 '17 '16

    Back to the strategy, I would have thought a German player worth their salt would not wait in Bryansk for a US build up in Iraq when USA was pushing for it, unless they were going for a G6 Moscow take down I suppose. It’s one thing to hang around when the UK have a Persia factory and one in South Africa and a certain number of troops, being added to far more slowly than the Germans are building up but when the USA are also adding to that at 3/turn, you would need to hit that pretty quickly.

    The only real way I can see it doing anything of use is if UK avoid the Persia factory for an Egypt one. That way, at least Germany can’t stage in NW Persia and threaten two factories. I guess that kind of fits in with the theory that it’s only useful with a J1 DOW. You can hit Ethiopia UK1, claim Persia UK2 and maybe even build an Egypt IC UK1.

  • '17

    Can Moscow stack Bryansk if Germany goes south with enough stuff to actually capture the middle east? Ive seen players go south but it usually results in German players having to step back. Sometimes other consequences result of course.

    I guess if Germany wants Persia they can get it before Moscow falls no matter what. So it still makes sense to me for the UK to churn out units at Persia and Egypt. Then when Germany is too strong at nw Perisa, you make a strategic withdrawal to the US’s position at Iraq. Persia falls, but Iraq is stacked with troops. When amd where the allies counter attack is situation dictates of course.

    Doesnt something give if Germany goes south with such a large stack that the Allies are just forced to give ground. Cant Russia move off Moscow or the Allies get away with a cheap landing? I usually see Germany going south before Moscow is taken getting punished somewhere else on the board.

  • '19 '17 '16

    I agree with that but I’m not clear how the allies turn that to their advantage? Many players feel that Germany heading south is optimal anyway. This just gives them an extra IC when they do so.

Suggested Topics

  • 39
  • 24
  • 8
  • 11
  • 101
  • 13
  • 30
  • 29
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

54
Online

15.1k
Users

35.9k
Topics

1.5m
Posts